[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 31 February 2 >

February 1

[edit]

Russian Empire

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. Right now, the subcategories of Category:Russian Empire use either of/in "the Russian Empire" or "Imperial Russia". I thought it would be a good idea to standardize this usage to match the parent category and the main article Russian Empire. "Imperial Russia" should be used when it's used in a proper name, and "Imperial Russian" is probably the best adjective to use for something from the Russian Empire (e.g., Category:Imperial Russian people), but if it's a generic "in FOO" or "of FOO" category, "in/of the Russian Empire" is best for consistency, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Child molestation survivors

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. –Black Falcon (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Child molestation survivors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure that this category is a good idea. Similarly-named categories have been deleted in the past, but it's been a while so I thought a new nomination could be useful: 2007 JUL 31 2007 MAY 4. It may be defining for some, but the potential BLP problems are obvious. Although the category definition is careful to set out that this is for people who have publicly stated they have been molested as children, another potential problem is how this affects living people who are accused of committing the child molestation by the person who makes the public statement. What if the accused person denies it and there's been no legal adjudication of the issue? If the accused person is alive, that creates a BLP problem because the category affirms that the person was indeed molested. If kept it's going to need some fairly dedicated patrolling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:C21

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:C21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small, eponymous category that contains only the main article C21 (Danish band) and the subcategory Category:C21 albums. We usually have required a bit more to justify an eponymous category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Visa free travel

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Visa free travel to Category:Visa requirements by nationality
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains a bunch of articles named "Visa requirements for FOOian citizens". Each article is about more than just visa-free travel. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Passport covers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Images of passports. –Black Falcon (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Passport covers to Category:Images of passports
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. The target category contains images of covers as well as inside pages of passports. If we want to separate the images of the covers it should be Category:Images of passport covers but the target category is small and I don't see a reason to separate them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Workers Party of Ireland politicians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Workers Party of Ireland politicians to Category:Workers' Party of Ireland politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename category to match grammatically correct name of party with apostrophe, which is Workers' Party of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American liberal organizations

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete.
This nomination covers much the same ground as the recent discussion over Category:American progressive organisations. The outset of this debate was inauspicious, with a number of contributors claiming that this nomination was WP:POINTy, abusive, and/or in bad faith. I do not think that these arguments can be sustained. I encourage all contributors to this, and other, debates to assume good faith and to address themselves to the issues raised. Blatant bad-faith nominations will usually find themselves subject to speedy closure; persisting in debating the merits of a nomination rather than the merits of the categories nominated will generally add more heat than light to the diesussion and will make the whole issue a lot harder to judge.
Once more the main thrust for deletion is the alleged subjectivity of the label, in this case 'liberal'. The arguments for retention can be reduced to two positions - a) that the term liberal has a definition and its application is therefore not subjective, and, b) that sourced self-identification and/or third party description should be regarded as being adequate justification for applying this category.
It is beyond argument that the term 'liberal' has a dictionary definition. The question is, given this definition, can it be used to make objective assessments in order to properly apply this category? In considering this question, I found the following statement from User:Black_Falcon to be a neat encapsulation of a vein of argument which many editors favoured:
Liberalism, like conservatism, is not defined by even a vaguely-formed set of ideological principles; it is a state-of-mind that can be shared by individuals and organizations of a thousand different beliefs and ideologies, and which can and does have a different meaning for each one.
Arguments presented on both sides, definitions provided in the debate as well as those I have researched myself, lead me to judge that the vast array of opinion which the term is capable of representing makes the it a meaningless label without the provision of cultural and historical context and explanation. To quote Wikipedia:Categorization: "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition...". This is not a case where the word has a meaning, good for all times and good for all places. The meaning has shifted over the years, can encompass many divergent strands of opinion, and is generally deeply relative and subject to personal bias and outlook.
As in the previous debate, the questions of self-identification and reputable third-party sourcing have been raised. These certainly justify discussion of a 'liberal' outlook and identity in the relevant article, but they do not carry over to the area of categorisation. Categories appear to have a tremendous claim of factuality. If the category system is to work then they need to be concerned with objective and uncontroversial facts. A lack of consensus as to meaning of the word 'liberal' robs it of these attributes and as a result this particular term cannot be held to be a suitable basis for a scheme of categorisation.
--Xdamrtalk 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American liberal organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no objective criteria for inclusion, so on its face this category fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. In the past it was agreed that only organizations that self-identify as Liberal should be included (as that is the only objective criteria) but that seems to have broken down. This category is continually expanded based not on objective criteria, but on the opinion of the editor (or the opinion of a third-party). I favor deletion as this serves little navigational or organizational purpose (articles are generally added because an editor wants to "label" them as such). But if this category is to be kept, it must be made crystal clear what the standard for inclusion is. Loonymonkey (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Deletion discussions are done individually and WP:MULTI has nothing to do with nominations. The two categories are related, so there should probably be consensus across the board which is why I nominated this category. The discussion continues there but consensus is pretty evenly split (with many of the "Keeps" agreeing that it needs to be clarified that this is for self-identification only). And I'm not really sure what WP:NPOV has to do with this unless that's just a backhanded way to accuse me of bad faith. Do you have any comments on the subject of this discussion? --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. My comment is that this is a disruptive POV-pushing nomination that shouldn't have been made, and it's hard to see how it was made in good faith when you're singling out just one adjective, ignoring all of the related categories in the subject, making edits where you delete the adjective "liberal" but keep the adjective "conservative" to refer to other organizations in the same article, and ignoring the fact that the consensus is against your disruptive edits or this disruptive nomination. Speedy keep. THF (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations like this happen all the time, often as "test" nominations for other similar categories. I think you are over-reacting and need to assume good faith and stop labelling a within-process nomination as "disruptive". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a test nomination. The test nomination was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_22#Category:American_progressive_organizations, where there was no consensus for deletion. THF (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You assume too much. That discussion hasn't even been closed yet! Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a basis for questioning this nomination, since the nominator had already participated in the other discussion and the nominator boasts of thousands of deletions and reversions of others' contributions.[1] Although we start out assuming good faith, at some point the evidence of a contrary agenda becomes too voluminous to ignore. The lengthy discussion of this nomination has distracted contributors' time that could otherwise have gone into building up the project, and now you seem to be saying the nomination itself was unnecessary because there was already an open discussion elsewhere.TVC 15 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say that, nor was I suggesting it. One problem with this entire discussion is that users have repeatedly tried to read into the intentions of others or the hidden implications of what other users' comments or actions mean. This is yet another indication of this recurring problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TVC 15, assuming bad faith and making personal attacks has no place in this discussion. I would suggest you stick to the subject at hand here. If you have issue with the fact that I've reverted vandalism thousands of times (or "others' contributions" as you put it) then take it up in a more appropriate forum, such as a talk page. And if you feel this discussion "has distracted contributors' time," well, you do realize there is no requirement to participate, right? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I misread when the last discussion was but I thought it was more recent than that. Besides thats not too long ago. Anyway I guess it's immaterial to the real discussion. I see no reason to delete this category just as I see no need to delete any category of organizations by their political orientation.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True enough; you make a good point as well. I think it probably is time this category and the progressive category come up for review. As I've noted, since those who name themselves as either or both descriptors often end up on the same side in US politics, I suggest simply merging the two categories. As for what would belong in the category I would suggest adding whatever organizations call themselves by those two descriptors obviously. Additionally however, I think organizations that work closely with defined progressive or liberal organizations should be in the category as well. For example, the NAACP defines itself as neither liberal nor progressive but often supports those causes and often sides with the Democrats on legislation and works very closely with other organizations that do label themselves as such; therefore it should be added to that category hypothetically. That's just an example and the criterion may be hard to define as to what groups would belong in such a category. No doubt the very people who oppose these categories would be against such a proposal and limit it to only groups that self-identify as these labels, but it's an idea that needs discussing--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case, then this category would not only fail WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE but would fail WP:OC#ASSOCIATED as well. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your rationale for keeping it, in light of wikipedia policy stated above (specifically WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE) Loonymonkey (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep pointy nomination is disrespectful of all those article editors who placed this category in their articles because the article content supports this category. Only those who are grossly ignorant of American politics do not see the point of this and the related, but not overlapping, progressive categories Hmains (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that your comment above is appropriate, Hmains. People can disagree without being "grossly ignorant", and a CFD nomination is not "disrespectful" to other users who have populated the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disrespectful, yes. The deletionists are saying that all the article writers are wrong by having placed the articles into this category. If the contents of the article say that organization is liberal, then categories are there to help to navigate to it. If the article contents are wrong and not supported by references, then the article contents need to be changed--not by POV edits either. Until that time, the category system of navigation is not helped by POV category deletions trying to push points about content. Hmains (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The specific political bent of these organizations is their defining characteristic and we only harm navigation by trying to rob users of this category as a navigation aid. Alansohn (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In most of these cases, it's hardly their defining characteristic, it's just a pejorative label hurled by those who oppose them. But more to the point of this discussion, who defines it? How is it defined? What is the definition, even? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree. As I've seen in most cases the label is a defining characteristic and is not used as a pejorative.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's incorrect. Dozens and dozens of articles were added to the category a couple days ago based not on self-identification or even reliable sources but on the editor's POV. I reverted these, but a couple of editors are repeatedly adding these categories back in and claiming that self-identification is no longer necessary. This kind of proves my point about WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. There is no defining characteristic for this category other than an editor's subjective opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We need to stop this back and worth, most people seem to agree that this category needs to be kept. I agree with Hmains that the content of the article should decide whether or not a page be placed in this category. If the article is labeled as liberal then there should be an appropriate and valid reference but that's not the point of this discussion. The point is that I think we can all agree that if something is labeled as liberal then it needs to be in this category. If it doesn't deserve to be in this category then the article needs to be changed just as Hmains said. For navigational purposes I say we keep the category; for instance, if someone is looking for liberal organizations then it stands to reason we provide them with a way to access more pages for liberal organizations. However, as some have noted, liberal and progressive can sometimes mean the same thing, in that case those looking for liberal organizations could likely be looking for progressive organizations as well, so why not merge the two into a single category with both descriptors so as to more easily facilitate navigation amongst similar topics? In doing we can still maintain that whatever goes into this category must be liberal and/or progressive based on the article content. Any thoughts on this idea? Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as vague and subjective per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Category:American liberals was deleted at CfD 2007 January 19, and all the same problems apply to this category as to its parent. There seems to be no clear and objective definition of "liberal", and in an American context "liberal" is often used as an attack-label, so however much some editors insist that ITSUSEFUL, even the "keep" editors seem unclear about how exactly to determine what it should contain.
    Since there is no generally-accepted definition of the word "liberal" in an American context, any attempt to apply inclusion criteria fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Sparrowhawk's suggestion of basing it on article content doesn't help resolve the problem, because even though any such labelling should not be in the article unless referenced, the absence of a shared meaning for the term means that an article can end up in the category simply because somebody somewhere has decided for whatever reason to label them that way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will never have an objective definition of any political ideology and to simply say we should throw out any and all categories or organizations of any ideology is simply, as the term goes, "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." It does not matter if the label liberal is used as a pejorative, it's still an ideology. And as for the possibility that anybody anywhere can label an organization as liberal in bad faith is true, but anybody anywhere can label any organization or any page for that matter anything they want. There are other editors out there who monitor vandalism. The point was entirely missed in my suggestion. There will always be those who mislabel things either out of ignorance or their own biased opinion. I think the inclusion criteria for a page being placed in my idea of a merged category would be if there was a reputable and unbiased source for naming an organization as such.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your assertion that will never have an objective definition of any political ideology is precisely the resaon why ideologies make bad categories. All the arguments you make to keep the category are based on a) ignoring the consensus against subjective categories and b) ignoring the deletion at CfD of the parent category Category:American liberals.
    All your talk of "mislabelling" is irrelevant, because unless the term has a clear definition, any use of the label is subjective. The idea of an "unbiased source" which can magisterially apply political-ideology labels is quite funny: have you read WP:NPO#'BIAS? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin None of the Keep comments so far actually address the specific Wikipedia policy problems described above. There are four "votes" to keep, but of course Wikipedia is not a democracy. Saying "I like it" (or, conversely, "I don't like the person who nominated this") is not a valid rationale for keeping a category that on its face fails basic policy. Particularly disturbing is that this discussion seems to be compromised by improper canvassing and vote-stacking. At least two of these Keep "votes" came here after THF left non-neutral messages asking them to weigh in on this and related discussions, knowing that they were already in agreement on the subject. See [2] and [3]. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That is not true in the slightest! I have done absolutely nothing inappropriate and find it terribly offensive to suggest any sort of collusion. He messaged me after I was already discussing on the nominations of both liberal and progressive. Not only that but he messaged me about a discussion board to talk about your POV, a discussion in which I did not even take part in and in fact, I deleted the message because I realized his attempt to draw me into labeling you as not being neutral was inappropriate. I'm discussing on both pages because I was looking for liberal and progressive organizations and noticed both were nominated for deletion. Many people have made valid arguments but I fail to remember anyone simply saying "I like it" and using that a rationale. I certainly hope you didn't mean to implicate me in any improper conduct and I find it disturbing that you would imply improper conduct in an attempt to push your point of view. Additionally, no one is counting votes; consensus, by definition, is general agreement and it seems most people say we should keep this category with a few people vociferously opposing.Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notwithstanding the judgement of a nom, the arguements for Keep are not somehow weak <g>. "Liberal" and "progressive" are not pejoratives, nor do any dictionaries or other sources list them as such. As the words are not pejorative, no WP policies say to delete them. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument is a red herring. The nominating rationale is not that the word liberal is pejorative (which is not a reason for deletion anyway), but that the category is arbitrary and subjective (which most certainly is a reason for deletion). That specific policy problem still has not been addressed by anyone "voting" to keep. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons set out by BrownHairedGirl—it's subjective, there is no accepted definition in the U.S. sense, it can be used as a perjorative, previous consensus has been to delete categories that use this term in the American context, etc. This entire discussion is troubling to me. There has been apparent vote stacking, personal attacks, and a number of misrepresentations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to the examples in WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE (e.g. "great"), the word "liberal" does have reasonably specific meaning, the category has been applied in good faith, and generally the subject organizations self-identify or would agree with it. (For example, People for the American Way emphasizes 'progressive', but links readily to sources that call it liberal, which supports Sparrowhawk64's suggestion to merge the two categories. The late Walter Cronkite even chose a PFAW dinner to proclaim himself liberal and encourage all Americans to do likewise. Perhaps the nominator thinks Walter simply got lost, went to the wrong dinner, or didn't know American politics?) Otherwise the argument from subjectivity could apply equally to any political category, for example George W. Bush and a Republican Congress were called conservative but ran up record budget deficits, which some would say is not conservative. Categories are almost always imperfect, as inherently they group different but related things into one rubric, but that is not sufficient reason to eliminate them. In this context it is worth noting that the "vast majority" of the Nominator's 'contribution' to Wikipedia consists of "simple reversions"[4] and deletions; if everyone followed the Nominator's proffered rationale, there would be nothing left of Wikipedia.TVC 15 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Don't tell us, show us.
    Rather than simply asserting that the word "liberal" does have reasonably specific meaning, please set out a clear and concise definition of "American liberal" which is neutral and reliably-sourced. Without such a definition the category is subjective, because the word "liberal" is just a Humpty Dumpty term which means simply whatever the speaker wants it to mean:
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
    None of the plentiful and verbose ILIKEIT comments by the "keep" !voters have even tried to answer Humpty Dumpty's question of which meaning is to be master. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've stated you will never have an objective definition for any political ideology, it changes from person to person, politician to politician, ideologue to ideologue and even from academic to academic. If you're so desperate to find one I suggest you read the Wiki pages of the ideologies for some place to start. If the pages in the category have an unbiased and reputable source then why shouldn't they be placed in a category where users can find other similar organizations?--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, we're getting somewhere. I'm not desperate to find a definition, but if you want to keep the category then you need one, to stop the category from being subjective ... but as you say, the definition changes from person to person, politician to politician, ideologue to ideologue and even from academic to academic. I agree 100% with you on that, which is why the category is fails the subjectivity test.
    As to your suggestion that labelling by "an unbiased and reputable source" removes the need for a stable definition, that's like saying that we could have a category for "tasty food" so long as one reputable source describes it as such. (And if you think there is such a thing as an unbiased source, read WP:NPOV#Bias). --20:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
  • If you think "liberal" is too subjective, what would you propose as an alternative? Left vs. right? American organizations tend to identify as liberal/progressive vs. conservative, not "leftist" vs. "rightist." There are some variations, e.g. libertarian, although in recent years libertarian has often been called "conservative" (notwithstanding libertarians' support for legalizing drugs and abortion rights); yet, you don't seem to call for deleting "conservative" as a category. At least in American politics, which are polarized along what is usually considered a left-right spectrum (libertarians would call it a 2-dimentional grid), sorting begins with a familiar bifurcation, like eastern states vs. western states (with the midwest along the Mississippi River). Your "tasty food" example does not really illuminate because taste is a classic example of subjectivity; a nearer analogy would be to categorize organic matter as "food" and "not food," where you could probably find broad consensus on most examples, with some differences of opinion. In answer to your question, words mean what most people generally understand them to mean, which is why dictionaries get updated; we don't look to Humpty Dumpty for definitions, but we also don't allow the evolving nature of language to strike us all dumb. Specifically with regard to WP:RS, if reliable sources like the New York Times call an organization liberal or conservative, that description probably matches the definition of most readers and most participants in the organization itself (especially if the organization's website links to the publication).TVC 15 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I could not have said it better myself. The food argument is reductum ad absurdum used at its finest. Ridiculously simplifying the argument by following the logical train of thought to the most extreme premise. There is no reason, none whatsoever, that as long as the page has been accurately described as such that users should not be able to find more like it. Again I reiterate my call to merge this category and the progressive category so users may more easily find organizations of similar strains by using this category for navigational purposes.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • American Liberalism and American Progressivism are of a similar tradition, but they are not at all identical as a reading of the relevant WP articles readily show. CfD is to help categories to help readers navigate to articles. The Liberal and Progressive articles are not going to be combined and neither should be their categories. Such action would only serve to confuse navigation and the reader. Hmains (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree they are of a similar tradition and are not identical. That being said most every political organization on the left in the United States uses the words interchangeably and there is hardly any difference between those who call themselves liberal and those who call themselves progressive. In just about every context, from candidates to columnists and pundits, progressive and liberal are interchangeable and therefore should share a category even if they're not identical because they both align left of center and users should be able to navigate to both types of organizations since they always work towards similar ends. It would not confuse a reader if, at the bottom of the page, there is a category called American progressive and liberal organizations. I agree Progressive and Liberal pages should not be combined but look for yourself on the progressivism in the United States page and you will see that in the modern context, the goals of the ideologies and the people that work towards them, are the same. So should readers be confused because liberal Democrats call themselves progressives? No because the two ideologies share much in common and work towards similar goals. That's why they should share a category, because users may want to find other similar, not identical, organizations.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, coming back to the topic of this CfD, the argument to keep the categories separate is an argument to KEEP both categories because they are intrinsically different and thus not WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. That's fine with me. Hmains makes good arguments for keeping both, and Sparrowhawk64 makes good arguments for merging them, and either would be better than deletion.TVC 15 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument makes no sense. That it might be considered different than another word has nothing to do with whether it is subjective or not. The core issue here has yet to be addressed, other to proclaim "It's not subjective!" If it is not subjective, then what is the objective criteria for inclusion? --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loonymonkey, I think we already had the answer to that, above: the keep logic is that a subjective term becomes objective when printed in The New York Times, which is apparently unbiased and unimpeachably reliable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loonymonkey, the argument makes perfect sense, if you take the time to read it. The objective criteria for inclusion are self-identification and/or description in reliable sources (especially if the organization links to the source). You might find some sources calling the progressive PFAW liberal, but I doubt you'll find many reliable sources calling PFAW conservative; likewise you might find some sources saying Fargo (film) was set in South Dakota instead of North Dakota, which might be an argument for merging the Dakotas (there are better arguments for that), but nobody would say the film was set in Mississippi and we're certainly not about to delete the Dakotas. User:BrownHairedGirl, sarcasm is really helpful.TVC 15 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • TVC 15, those are not objective criteria: they are simply third-party subjectivity. Since the terms lack an objective definition, relying on third-party labelling as the basis for this subjective categorisation does not create objectivity, and can provoke a war of sources: for example the organisation does not describe itself as "liberal", but one newspaper does call it "liberal", while another describes it as "centrist", and third describes it as "left-wing and deeply illiberal". Those differences of view can readily been discussed in the text of an article, but lead to irresoluble disputes when used as the basis of a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple problems with that logic, TVC 15. First, categories are not referenced, so it must be self-evident that an article belongs (thus the whole subjective rule). Saying that we'll reference it in the article just punts the whole subjective issue into article space without actually addressing the problem. The core problem is that a broad, general political slant can never be objectively defined (which is why nobody has tried to put forth a definition in this discussion). "Supporters of abortion rights" can be objective, as can "Opponents of the Iraq War" but the sum of these two does not necessarily mean "Liberal," it can just as easily mean "Libertarian" or a multitude of other subjective labels. Short of self-definition, it will always be a matter of subjective opinion, whether that opinion is an editor's or a respected third-party. There is no line that can divide organizations between "liberal" and "not liberal," thus there is no objective criteria. To use your Fargo example, that the film is set in North Dakota is a verifiable and objective fact so it could belong to a category called "Films set in North Dakota." But it could not be placed in (nor could there exist) a category called "Morally ambiguous films." It doesn't matter that A.O. Scott may have referred to the film that way in the Times, it is not an objective fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[outdent] If you check the article on Venn diagrams, you may notice that closely related terms can overlap, so that one item can fit in both categories; for example, a monkey can also be loony, but that doesn't make either term WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. If you find conflicting sources, you might consider the possibility of a typo or mistake: In Iowa, the world looks flat, but from space it looks round; that doesn't make "round" and "flat" subjective, nor does it require Wikipedia to conclude that "opinions on shape of earth differ." Rather, consider the weight of reliable sources, as all Wikipedia articles do. If every little typo or "someone is wrong on the Internet" caused whole categories (and articles!) to be deleted, it would be impossible to categorize or even write about anything.TVC 15 (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TVC15, multiplication of sources does not reduce the subjectivity of the judgement. Even if we have five sources labelling an organisation as "liberal", it's still a subjective term, and those five sources may be using the term in a very different way.
As above, that's something which can and should be addressed in the text of an article, but adding that label through a category makes it appear as objective fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply repeating the word "subective" does not make the category WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Rather, some extreme form of relativism seems to have afflicted you. You can find different sources disagreeing about whether Pluto is a planet, but disagreement about particular examples does not render the entire category WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, which is why the category planets has not been deleted.[5]TVC 15 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a very different issue, and the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is central to this discussion. Pluto is affected by shifting concepts around the lower edges of what constitutes a planet, but the core concept of a planet has been stable for a long time; both the older current definition allow for an objective classification of a body as a planet, and although they produce different results at the lower, each allows for objective tests. No such objectivity is available with regard to the concept of "liberal" as a political adjective; its core philosophical definitions are relatively simple, but applying it in the murky world of politics has never been straightforward, let alone be suitable for transparent and objective tests such as those applied to Pluto.
The lack of an objective test for applying the label "liberal" to organisations has in fact been of the few pieces of common ground throughout the thread. The difference is that some editors are happy to categorise on the basis of subjective self-labelling, while others want to categorise by adopting third-party labelling, without any indication that any such labelling is based on any objective test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, as a point of fact, your perceived lack of an objective test is not "common ground" among those who want to keep the category. Second, every time I offer you another analogy intended to be helpful, you seem to keep missing the forest for the trees. Nevertheless, I will try again, in the hope that sooner or later the forest might become apparent. If you were to create a category, "Things of which there is a finite number," that category would surely include the classic example, "grains of sand in the Sahara." In practice, trying to count every grain of sand in the Sahara would be a huge waste of time, even more so than this discussion is becoming, yet there is a finite number and the category would not be WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Lexicographers spend their careers defining words, and updating those definitions to reflect evolving usage. That does not render every word in the dictionary WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Instead of demanding that someone here must provide you with a definition that you will accept as objective (which you seem unwilling to accept even after hmains pointed out the specific historical traditions differentiating liberal from progressive, and the WP articles on those subjects), why not apply your considerable persistence to counting grains of sand in the Sahara? You might become the first to provide a specific, finite count, and if a chance wind forces you to start over, that would only prolong your fun.TVC 15 (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TVC 15, that looks like an attempt to patronise, me but it was a very shoddy effort.
It's all very well pointing to dictionary definitions of liberalism and airily pronouncing that they exist ... but I'm well aware of them it doesn't get us anywhere unless they provide some means of objectively assessing whether an organisation fits the definition or not. However, while Hmains referred to the different traditions, he offered no objective way of assessing which one a particular organisation belongs to, and nor do you.
Does "Liberal" mean "left of center"? And if so, where exactly is that center? And how is it defined? And who defines it? (From a European perspective, 90% of American politics is well to the right of center, but even from an American perspective, "center" is a transient, relative concept).
Does "Liberal" mean Classical Liberalism? Or cultural liberalism? Or paleoliberalism? Probably none of them, because as the article Modern liberalism in the United States points out, the contemporary usages of the word in America don't fit any of those meanings. There have been huge splits and shifts over the years, and while the topic makes a good article, that article itself illustrates brilliantly how it's simply too diffuse to make a category.
Nonethleless, you deny that there is a lack of an objective test ... so where is that objective test?
Do it include those described pejoratively as as "bleeding-heart liberal", "knee-jerk liberal", "tax-and-spend liberal", "cut-and-run liberal", "Massachusetts liberal", "limousine liberal", "liberal elite", or any of the other attack variants of the term?
This isn't a theoretical exercise or a piece of pedantry. It's the reason that this category arrived at CFD, because clearly editors who categorise articles under this heading cannot agree what it is supposed to include. And yet we have a few keep !voters insisting that the category must be kept, without answering that question.
So just drop the analogies: they are all irrelevant. If you want the category to stay, start by setting out a concise definition of what exactly this category is supposed to contain, so that when there is a dispute about inclusion, there is is some objective means of settling it. Otherwise you are just arguing for the retention of a category which means radically different things to different people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will stop creating new analogies for you, but the sands of the Sahara was actually a pretty good metaphor for American politics so I will stick with that one. If you ask people, "define the Sahara," they'll say it's a desert in Africa, and point to a map. However, the sands that constitute the Sahara are always shifting, and sometimes blinding storms can obscure the whole sky. Now, if you bring a truckload of sand from the Sahara to Dublin, to cover your garden, you may say subjectively that you live in your own little piece of the Sahara. Your family may even indulge your claim, until a good Irish rain shows that you're all wet. Demanding a "concise definition" (and what is concise?) of a complicated term is unreasonable; as Einstein said, everything should be "as simple as possible, but no simpler." And, you're wrong about how this category got to CfD; it got here because Loonymonkey nominated it. Loonymonkey spends substantially all his/her time on Wikipedia reverting others' contributions, deleting from the project, and nominating and arguing for deletion. This whole tedious discussion, which has taken us away from contributing to the project, could have been avoided simply by reading WP:DNFTT. The category refers to a specific region of the American political landscape, just as the Sahara refers to a specific place in Africa, even if the exact boundaries of the Sahara wax and wane, and even if some of the sand that constitutes the Sahara sometimes gets blown into neighboring regions (or carted off in trucks to Dublin). I don't need to give you a 'concise definition' any more than I need to tell you exactly how many grains of sand constitute the Sahara; if you genuinely want an answer to either question, check reliable sources and look for consensus. Someday, a giant electron micrograph in space may enable photographing the entire Sahara instantaneously and programming a computer to count every grain of sand therein; a special lens might enable you to peer similarly into the American political landscape, and define its exact contours with precise equations. Until then, we look for consensus among reliable sources.TVC 15 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TVC15, you are still confusing two very different issues: subjectivity and fuzzy boundaries.
The precise boundaries of the Sahara desert are fuzzy and shifting, but it has a huge, undisputed and ambiguous core area. It is objectively defined as "the northern limit of the Sahara corresponds to the northern limit of Date Palm cultivation (Phoenix dactylifera), and the southern limit of Esparto (Stipa tenacissima), a grass typical of the Mediterranean climate portion of the Maghreb and Iberia" (see the refs in Sahara desert#Geography)
By contrast, there is no undisputed and unambiguous definition of "American liberal": it is a subjective labelling, a characterisation rather than a classification. Your proposed use of it is simply as a shared epithet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, since you said previously not to patronize you, I hesitate to point this out, but you might want to read the WP article Epithet, which says, "An epithet...is a descriptive term (word or phrase) accompanying, or occurring in place of, a name, and having entered common usage." Note that it says "descriptive," not "subjective." Since you now accept that a term can have fuzzy boundaries and still not be WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, so long as it contains an undisputed region, you might apply the same logic to this category: begin with undisputed regions (e.g. [6],[7]) and work your way outwards towards the boundaries.TVC 15 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're still at it: confusing fuzzy boundaries with the lack of a definition. You have still no objective definition of what belong in this category, unless you are proposing to recast it as Category:American organizations which include the word "Liberal" in their title.
And yes, I do know what an epithet means. Plenty of descriptive terms are highly subjective. I might describe someone as persistent, determined, opinionated, ugly, irritating, and tedious; which could paint a good picture of someone, but is wholly subjective. That why we don't categorise people on wikipedia by any of those descriptive terms, though they can be quite properly used in biographical articles. Same goes for "American liberal": it's a vague and subjective term, which means radically different things to different commentators. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a word can have different meanings does not render a category WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, for example "empires" is a category,[8] even though it can refer to a system of government or a retail emporium or a growing corporation or bureaucratic department. Likewise "Health promotion"[9] is a category, even though people have different ideas about what that means and how to go about it. You seemed on the cusp of grasping the situation when you acknowledged that the Sahara is objective because it contains at least some undisputed territory, even though the boundaries may be fuzzy or disputed. Alas, you've reverted to going around in circles, claiming the term must be subjective because you call it subjective, which certainly does not make it WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE.TVC 15 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Since the "progressive" category has suddenly been deleted (a decision that will have to be reviewed) because the "keep" participants didn't provide a dictionary definition, here is a relevant dictionary definition of "liberal:" "favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual."[10] The heading for that definition is, "progressive politically or socially," which supports Sparrhowhawk64's suggestion to merge the liberal and progressive categories. Although I continue to respect hmains' point that liberal and progressive have separate historical traditions, and I would add there are more subtle differences also, nevertheless the recent deletion of the progressive category creates a new argument for a combined category (in addition to the overlap and similarity pointed out by Sparrowhawk64 and Encarta). BTW, Encarta also provides definitions of "American" and "organization," in case anyone needs help in those areas.TVC 15 (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TVC15, you are resorting to silliness and misrepresentation by claiming that "the term must be subjective because you call it subjective".
If you had bothered to engage brain or read what what I have written, it is subjective because it lacks a definition which allows which allows for objective assessment as to whether an organisation belongs in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
The only "misrepresentation" is your continued false claim that "it lacks a definition" after I've clearly posted one for you. Even you should find the reliably sourced definition of liberal much clearer than, for example, the definition for the category Poststructuralism.[11] Yet, you persist in attacking this category, as you did with the related category for progressive organizations, while ignoring conservative organizations.[12] (Although, just today, you've nominated that for deletion too. Perhaps from your vantage point you can't see the specific regions of the American political landscape, as someone looking at Mars might not be able to observe its regions, but your inability to see the landscape is in fact an argument for keeping categories on Wikipedia.) Your double standard (now with patent misrepresentation!) is why Sparrowhawk64[13] and THF[14] each accused you of pushing a POV in the "progressive" discussion.[15] The accusation applies even more clearly here, because "liberal" (unlike "progressive") does have a specific, relevant definition, quoted above from a dictionary for your edification, although apparently your eyes skipped over it because you claim it isn't there. There is silliness here, to be sure; the whole nomination is silly.TVC 15 (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought that you posted the Encarta definition as a joke, not as a serious attempt to define the basis for a category. It is a funny piece of mom-and-apple-pie feelgood meaninglessness: "favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual". The vast majority of electoral politicians in democracies favour "gradual reforms" and "extending democracy" and "protecting the personal freedom of the individual". The simple test of the usefulness of any such definition is to invert it: how many politicians run on a platform of "curtailing democracy", "opposing reforms", "reducing freedom"? Not many, except on fringe extremes.
In fact, AFAIK, every one of those objectives was espoused by George W. Bush at some point, so by your logic the "compassionate conservative" president should be in the category (those things may not what he actually did, but they do fit with what he claimed to want to do -- heck, he used the word "freedom" about a dozen times per second). Since Obamas's healthcare plans are frequently denounced as too radical and too big a step, presumably he is excluded from the category ... and similarly Clinton, who brought in the 3-strikes-and-you're-out legislation and cut social welfare payments.
This sort of woolly mishmash is a great example of why political labels make for bad categories: they are far too vague. But thank you for the entertainment provided by such a fine piece of comedy.
BTW, what exactly is the "double standard" that you allege? I'm a consistent opponent of subjective categories in any area, so I'm not sure why you make that charge ... unless you think by quoting somebody else's abuse you somehow avoid taking any responsibility for it yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "double standard" is, you've been attacking "liberal" and "progressive" for weeks, while ignoring "conservative" until today, and while still refusing to accept the inherent complexity of categorizing intellectual thought and movements as exemplified by countless other categories including the examples provided above. Laughing at books is better than burning them, but your categorical [Auto de fé] has similarly the effect of making information more difficult to find. If you try reading them instead, you may find Encarta's definition of conservative differs markedly: "in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change."[16] The fact that people disagree about particular examples is why Wikipedia (and life) rely on comparing different information and applying judgment; in the case of Wikipedia, this means looking to WP:RS and building WP:CONSENSUS.TVC 15 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated allegations of bad faith don't even have the virtue of consistency. You and your pal Sparrowhawk appear to have assumed in bad faith that a nomination of one category amounts to a POV-pushing, and that is simply wrong; amusingly it also contradicts the line you took at the start of this discussion, when you joined in the personal attacks on the nominator of this category for making the nomination while a similar category was also under discussion. Damned if I do, damned if I don't ... and either way you'll make more personal attacks.
For myself, I prefer to to stagger nominations on topic like this, because the heat and verbose obfuscation they generate from editors such as yourself who reject the long-standing consensus against subjective categories disrupts CFD's other businesss if too many of them are open at once. If you or anyone else want to open another discussion, you are quite free to do so, so if you felt that another nomination was needed you could have done it yourself instead of making yet more false unfounded assumptions of bad faith and repeated personal attacks.
You are, however, getting somewhere when you refer to the "inherent complexity of categorizing intellectual thought and movements". You don't seem to have noticed that this has been my concern throughout: that vague one-word labels grotesquely over-simplify this highly complex area, and have so many possible meanings that they create useless categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Complexity and impossibility are two different concepts, which is why I used the metaphor of the Sahara: counting every grain of sand in the Sahara would be very difficult, at least with current technology, but there is a finite number. With regard to POV, "To avoid evil, avoid the appearance of evil:" the solution would have been to accept Black Falcon's suggestion[17] to notify people here that you were starting a new CfD for the related categories "Conservative organizations" and "Conservative organizations in the United States." Instead, you refused,[18] just as you also refused my suggestion to place a neutral notification on each participant's Talk page.[19] You haven't persuaded anyone here, and the count is currently running 7-4 to keep, so your refusal to notify participants here creates at least an appearance problem.TVC 15 (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still appear to be under the delusion that deletion discussions are a vote-counting exercise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain your use of the phrase, "still appear to be under the delusion that deletion discussions are a vote-counting exercise?" I don't recall expressing that view. The 'keep' arguments here are both better and more numerous than the delete arguments, and the count reflects that, so you might consider that you're simply mistaken. Instead, your creation of a separate CfD without notifying participants here looks, to me, like Forum shopping.TVC 15 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Politically orientated organisations are divided into conservative, democratic, progressive, etc. Based on their names and/or reliable sources, inclusion in an appropriate Wikipedia category does not imply any POV, while not categorising these as such is withholding information. It is about time we stop being afraid of calling things by their names on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be the case, but adjectives such as "conservative", "democratic", and "progressive" do not have the same meaning in all contexts. The values of an organization that is considered to be conservative in the United States could be ultra-liberal in a Saudi Arabian context, just as the values of an organization that is "liberal" in a Saudi Arabian could be considered ultra-conservative in an American context.
    The problem is even more severe with "progressive": every politician and political party claims to be progressive when people are unhappy with the status quo. "Democratic", a term whose meaning has been expanded to the extent that it has lost almost all value except in propaganda (where it is essentially used as a synonym of "good") and narrowly-defined academic discussion, is perhaps the worst of all: the term is applied generously to multiple forms of government, various sets of social and political values, schemes of social organization and interaction, and so on. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Category:Political organizations in the United States per BrownHairedGirl. Liberalism, like conservatism, is not defined by even a vaguely-formed set of ideological principles; it is a state-of-mind that can be shared by individuals and organizations of a thousand different beliefs and ideologies, and which can and does have a different meaning for each one. If any editor can offer a definition of liberalism that is objective, non-original, and valid across time and space, then I would gladly change my mind. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to take a position one way or another here, but I want to share an idea or two. I think that if we're going to apply "precedent" in a sense (I'm aware that we at WP tend to bristle at that notion) then "American progressive organizations" seems like an identical case, which would suggest deleting the category. However, I think that this odd demand perpetuated by some editors that every word must have an exact definition, that we must have OBJECTIVITY! A IS A!, or else we can't do anything at all...I'm just not seeing how that line of thinking has any value. I'd wager there's some debate about how to define just about every word in the language. Some will have more debate than others, but the notion that "progressive" doesn't mean anything or "liberal" doesn't mean anything unless it has one and only one definition--that's just not useful. There might be legitimate reasons to delete the categories, if for instance they invite editors to make many dubious additions, the cost of upkeep on the category might not be worth the benefit of grouping similar articles together. However, let's not pretend that because words are sometimes unclear, they have no useful meaning. Croctotheface (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a mistake to get too theoretical about this. Yes, we can deconstruct just about every word if we want to. But some words have fairly clear and generally accepted meanings, whereas others are particularly problematic, which is why we have a long-standing consensus not to categorise those which don't have both a clear and consistent meaning and some sort of objective way of deciding whether an articles fits in the category. Trying to apply the term "liberal" (or "American liberal") can produce very different results depending on what area of policy is being examined, on where the observer is placed politically, and and on which of the different historical and ideological interpretations are used. In the American context, there is the additional problem of "liberal" being used as a political attack word ... all of which amount to a perfect recipe for the repeated conflicts over what articles belong in the category.
      Those who want to keep the category do not even agree on what it is for: some want it to include those who self-identify as liberal, some want it to be based on third-party labelling, while others insist that the term "liberal" has a clear enough meaning to them that they can make a legitimate editorial judgement on inclusion. Since there is no consensus amongst the "keep" !voters, keeping the category just guarantees a continuation of those conflicts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one making a mistake here, and I'm especially not the one being too theoretical. My point here is simple: words like "progressive" and "liberal" obviously have meanings. Otherwise, they would serve no purpose; someone would use the word and we'd have no clue what they're talking about. For some editors, there's this really bizarre fear of subjectivity, which ignores or misunderstands that basically every change to the encyclopedia involves subjectivity in some way. Saying that our response to words without completely "objective" meanings must be to give up doesn't help our readers. If this is so, we shouldn't use the words "liberal" or "conservative" or anything like them in article text, we should never quote someone who uses them, and on and on. Still, there are some other potentially valid reasons not to have the category, some of which you mentioned or alluded to here, and those reasons are why I didn't express a preference to delete or keep. Croctotheface (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regard to the deletion of "American progressive organizations," which was done without WP:Consensus, I think the 'precedent' is better understood as a cautionary example, and ultimately favors keeping this related category. The difference between liberal and conservative is at least partly genetic,[20] which supports Sparrhowhawk64's earlier argument to merge the liberal and progressive categories (since they overlap and are generally on the same side, as opposed to conservative). However, deleting the liberal category would make that impossible. Deleting both liberal and conservative would throw them all into a giant soup, as if they were all the same, making the connections within each camp more difficult to follow. Certainly liberal and conservative are more clearly defined than some other intellectual categories (e.g. Poststructuralism[21]), and involve less disagreement than others (e.g. Health promotion[22]). Yet, those remain categories, and somehow Wikipedia survives.TVC 15 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think that "American progressive organizations" was deleted without WP:Consensus, discuss your concerns with the closing admin and if you are still dissatisfied take it WP:DRV. This is is not the place to debate the merits of that closure. I don't think you'll get very far, because you still seem to think that deletion debates are a vote count, which is not how WP:Consensus works ... but you're free to try if you want to, in the proper forum.
        As to whether the political views of a person are influenced by genetics, well ... most physical characteristics are genetically influenced, but assessing them is still subjective, which is why they are explicitly listed in WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. (In any case this is a category of organisations, not individuals). Even if that one piece of research were to be widely accepted, it still does absolutely nothing to resolve the fundamental flaw of this category: that there is no accepted objective means of deciding which articles belong in the category and which do not. Even those who want to keep it have radically different ideas about the inclusion criteria, which is why — like any subjective category — it inevitably became a battleground. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the ideal nature of categories, from Wikipedia:Categorization:
"Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is likely to be more appropriate.
I don't think that anyone involved in this discussion could deny that this topic has sparked controversy (and would continue to do so across a broad spectrum of wikipedia if kept). Further, there is the fact that for all this discussion, no authoritative definition of "liberal" has ever been provided. A category that lacks an objective definition (and "liberal" is even more broad and subjective than "progressive") brings us to Wikipedia:Overcategorisation:
"Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category."
Clearly, that is applicable here as well. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contrary to the assertion above ("lacks an objective definition"), reliably sourced, objective definitions have been provided for both liberal ("favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual"[23]) and conservative ("in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change"[24]). That is a notable contrast to the progressive category, where XDamr noted that no one had provided any definition.
Also, the loss of the progressive category strengthens the argument for keeping the liberal category. There was so much overlap between the two that it was suggested they should be combined. That is a discussion for another day, but it could be accomplished simply by renaming the liberal category; on the other hand, it would become impossible if the liberal category were deleted.
The arguments of the deletionists are ultimately circular, i.e. the terms must be subjective because the deletionists say there is no objective definition, but in reality objective definitions have been provided and plenty of organisations fit indisputably in one category or the other. The deletionists fall back to arguing that there may be controversy about specific examples, but that is true for almost any category, from Planets (do you count Pluto?) to health promotion (as to which people have radically different ideas) to poststructuralism (read the article if interested). Every category will involve some examples that may seem ambiguous, but that does not make the entire category WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. WP does not grow from finding fault and tearing down everything that someone considers imperfect; it builds up based on the consensus of many editors adding what they know from reliable sources, including the many editors who have contributed to the liberal and conservative category entries.TVC 15 (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Late Night (NBC)

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Late Night (NBC) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Limited content base - articles on 3 iterations of the same show, one which has it own also included, subcategory. J Greb (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep has a subcategory, and another should be created for Letterman's iteration. Since it is the show, and a version of the show has its own subcategory... useful for navigation as a parent container. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hurricanes and tropical depressions of the Gulf of California

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 00:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hurricanes and tropical depressions of the Gulf of California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily duplicate of Category:Pacific hurricanes. No precedence exists for by-region storm categories. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:RSDLP members

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:RSDLP members to Category:Russian Social Democratic Labour Party members
Nominator's rationale: Rename to expand abbreviation and match main article name. Darwinek (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. While I have been pushing for "politicians" categories for parties of modern states, that scope may be too restrictive in cases where the organization was banned (either explicitly or because the state was non-democratic and did not recognize any political parties), or a large part of its operation was non-electoral in nature. That applies to the RSDAP as well as some revolutionary/liberation movements which became political parties such as the ANC.- choster (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to spell out full title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Arbitrary, indiscriminate, and subjective categorisation. Any individuals with substantial and defining involvement wrt the Haiti earthquake should, quite properly, be noted in the main article. It is unnecessary to replace an indiscriminate category with an indiscriminate list. --Xdamrtalk 00:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake to article People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake
Nominator's rationale: "Associated with" is too vague; list will allow for definition of criteria and subdivision by degree and/or character of association. While currently in something of a holding pattern as the result of an aborted CfD that resulted in the splitting off of the Category:Casualties of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, this is a category that could conceivably grow to include a thousand politicians, celebrities and talking heads somehow weighing in on this tragedy (however positively or notably). This is overcategorization and gives undue weight to what, for many, may be the widely reported but fleeting presence for a couple of hours chatting with donors at a phone bank, or an off-hand remark on a talk show or in a speech. This group should instead be placed in a list. To do otherwise conflates an impactful but more distanced level of involvement with the serious and persistent efforts of individuals who, for example, chose to put their lives on the line to travel to the region in the immediate aftermath. Additionally — preposterously — it could conflate a relatively detached level of involvement with those who lived through the earthquake or even were injured or died as a result.
A list would allow us to give an explanatory preamble of what is (and what is not to be) a threshold for inclusion. A list would also allow us to create subsections dividing, say, elected officials from NGOs from private citizens; hands-on volunteers from fundraisers; or whatever the parameters are or are decided to be, which is currently unclear.
The victims' notability may have begun, and presumably ends, with the tragedy, so a category seems fitting; the politicians' or celebrities' does not. While I wholeheartedly support anyone who has any level of positive involvement, I think it could be more of an embarrassment than a point of pride to have Wikipedia shining such a bright light on this good work as to place a cat tag in their bio. Delete the Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake and create a list with the same title, with subsections that separate by degree or character of their association. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Telangana freedom fighters

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Particpants in the Telangana rebellion. — ξxplicit 07:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Telangana freedom fighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Blatantly POV category. "Freedom fighter" is listed as a term to avoid, in WP:FREEDOMFIGHTER. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scandals with -gate suffix

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete G4 from this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_11#Category:-gate

Category:Scandals with -gate suffix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Completely arbitrary naming convention. The only common link is the lack of imagination of the first journalist who perpetuates each ~gate. Falcadore (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Royal Canadian Mounted Police forts

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Royal Canadian Mounted Police forts to Category:North-West Mounted Police forts. --Xdamrtalk 21:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Royal Canadian Mounted Police forts to Category:North-West Mounted Police forts
Nominator's rationale: Rename. At the time that the Canadian police went around building forts, they were the NWMP. It's possible there were some honest-to-God "forts" built after the 1920 merger/rename, but they are surely exceedingly rare, and we certainly don't have any articles about them. Canada's frontier era was over by then in all places except the far north. But up there, there was no need for quasi-military forts, just ordinary detatchments/barracks. The actual forts were built in the 1870s because of the fear of the Fenians, American whiskey traders and wolvers, and a possible Indian rebellion like the North-West Rebellion.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note previous discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National parks of Canada

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:National Parks of Canada. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:National parks of Canada to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Listed for discussion. A "National Park of Canada" is a specific legal title bestowed on parks by the Canadian federal governement through legislation, for parks administered by it's parks service, Parks Canada. However there are other parks national parks in Canada. Specifically, the National Parks of Quebec. The province of Quebec has chosen to name all it's provincial parks as "national parks", (see Quebec nationalism). Therefore WP categories should disambiguate between the two, without taking any specific position on Quebec's nationhood. One solution would be to rename this category Category:National parks in Canada and include both types as sub-cats. My prefered solution is to use the cat only for federal parks and indicate this by capitalizing "Parks", i.e. Category:National Parks of Canada, and listing Quebec's National Parks elsewhere.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects Canada, Quebec, and Protected Areas have been notified.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_1&oldid=1144513438"